Skip to main content

About your Search

20130216
20130224
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
fatigue at this point. debt ceiling versus fiscal cliff and now the sequester and as jonathan pointed out, the sequester cuts kind of a rolling cut. they don't really get this. i'll say the white house is probably in a better position messagingwise because what they can do right now and what they are doing right now is pointing to the individual cuts and that resonates with voters and people who are monitoring the news, being able to say, oh, meatpackers can't inspect meat or longer lines at the airport. the resonates with people and effective messaging on their part and republicans don't have that same luxury right now. >> does it resonate only with the people that agree with the president? you talk about, for example, not likely that the republicans in the reddest part of the country receiving calls of constituents. is this again another situation where it resonates? if that's what you believe and going back to the core of this, this huge gap in this country and in people elected to represent us on what should be done particularly when it comes to tax revenue, shira? >> well, i think th
in washington. one crisis to another. when you come up against the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff usually we put it off. but i think this is one that is going to cause tremendous damage and the question is with the congress gone for a week when do they have time to negotiate. >> $85 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget. >> a small percentage but if it affects you. >> and this is going to hurt the economy? >> if you lose your job i think it hurts you don't you think? >> fundamentally the debt that we have at the moment is the bigger problem for the economy and job creation in the private sector. >> chris: let me binge karl in to talk about the sequester and look at the president's state of the union speech and agenda he laid out and what does that tell us about what he wants to do in his second term? >> spend a lot of money and pursue a lot of liberal social policies and says he is out of touch with the reality of where the country is. the democrats said we don't have a spending problem. 83% of the american people say we have a pending problem. i agree with kim. $85 billion cut is a 2.4% cut
? >> that is right. >> would it be reasonable, confronting a fiscal cliff in january, potential debt ceiling default in march, sequestration, or ceiling default in february, sequestration in march, government shut down in april, another potential debt ceiling in may, could shake the confidence of some investors in our ability to deal with our responsibilities? >> yes. we think the crisis mode of fiscal policy over the last few years is reducing people's confidence. how big of an effect that is, we don't know. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i think by anyone's objective measure in this town or country, we would consider you a smart man and a good economist, right? >> thank you. >> it befuddles me, it strikes me that some of us want to spee chify other than uses precious time to engage you in questioning. -- use this precious time to engage you in questioning. i will try to continue on in that regard. speaking of speechifying, we heard it is impossible to get ourselves out of this debt situation by spending cuts alone. i want to understand if i am correct that the cbo projects that revenue w
is this is not the same as the fiscal cliff for the debt ceiling where the next day everybody's taxes are going to go up. these budget cuts would happen over time, and a lot of the furloughs would not happen for a month or two months. the next, big budget deadline is march 27, when the continuing resolution will expire, and meeting the will shut down if there is not a budget deal reached by march 27. there is talk of a sequestration deal being rolled into that so that march 27 might be the next deadline to look at. host: poco -- "the new york times" has this story -- "dire forecast on effective budget cuts." here is bloomberg businessweek looking at a reboot for the simpson-bowles plan. are we hearing anything new from them and what has the reaction been? guest: what is interesting is we have not had a ton of reaction from both sides. here is generally what their plan looks like -- 2.4 trillion dollars over the course of 10 years. that is scaled back. their other big deficit commission was around $4 trillion. one quarter of that would come from medicare and medicaid savings. another quarter would come f
. it was in the end game on the fiscal -- on the debt ceiling negotiations in 2011. literally july 27th, 2:30 in the afternoon, jack lew, who's in the white house chief of staff, rob neighbors, the head of congressional relations for president obama, went to see harry reid and proposed sequester. of course, everyone signed up to it, but it was designed to not happen. the cuts were perceived to be so draconian in domestic policy and in defense issues that no one would ever let this happen. it was the super committee, as you may remember, that was supposed to come up with more rational budget cuts. they failed. so we're stuck with -- it's kind of like being on a cruise ship with no power. >> where you have the captain and crew fighting each other and going around in circles. i don't get this, bob. you write this book about how the president and congress talk past each other. we have an election. we hear they might start talking together in a more positive sense. yet, here we have a situation that the defense industry hates, that advocates for the poor hate, that economists hate because you'r
and that was the case with the fiscal cliff deal and the previous debt ceiling fights. on the sequester you're not going to see real negative consequences or a lot of americans potentially losing jobs up until early april at the earliest. that's why you're not seeing a lot of movement on this now. >> lynn, this is how one person is spending his congressional recess, senator marco rubio just announced he is going to join israel ahead of secretary of state john kerry, ahead of the president himself. how should we read this? >> first of all it's telling he didn't say he's also going to the west bank, perhaps he is. most often these trips do include that, that he didn't want to mention if indeed what you showed was the release, that's an interesting angle to follow up on. this is what lawmakers do to season themselves, to become experts. is he not seen as necessarily an expert on international affairs right now and this is one of the areas that you go and by the way, if you wonder why a florida senator would be going to israel, it's because it's a major voting body within the state of florida. there's nothi
ceiling fight coming up again in may. so there's a lot of uncertainty around fiscal policy, around government contracting of all kinds. so it's going to be a sort of rolling snowball effect, i might call it, where it gets bigger and bigger. and by may this may be the only thing we're talking about. >> richard, one could wonder at this point, what was the point of setting the sequester limit if now we're just figuring out ways to come up with a new deal? this was supposed to be the deal. this was supposed to be the thing that forced action. >> right. >> what was the point of it if we're not going to enforce it? >> that's a very good question. what was the point of it? the point of it was that people had crawled out on a limb, and they needed to come off it somehow. the very people who crawled out on that limb are now saying, how did we ever get here? you made me do it. it is ridiculous. and unfortunately, you know, what's that hillary clinton line that she used to use? the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. just in ter
to our country. >> now, when it came to negotiations on the debt ceiling deal those came down to the wire. we saw the same thing with the fiscal cliff that didn't get resolved until after the deadline had passed and the sequester was supposed to take effect in january, but it got pushed to march. i have to ask you as a member of congress, why does congress put everything to the last minute, right down to the wire. is there a procedural reason for that? a tactical reason? >> it's like poker. you wait until you get the last card in order to find out whether you think you can win or not and then you normally assess what happens if you lose. but when you have a handful of people that can't lose and they want to win and if they stop government they've won and they don't feel the pain like it's their mom or their kids that are losing. they believe that their conservatism is enough to be a patriot to bring their own party down, but to bring the country down with it. and so i heard you say that we'll do this over and over again until people are numb, but even with russian roulette, there is a liv
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)